In my previous post ‘fitting in: singapore’, I talked about how social norms could influence an individual’s sustainable behaviour by examining my observations of Singapore and her people. While doing research for that post, I came across an interesting theory: the social identity theory.
the theory
Proposed by Henri Tajfel in 1979, the theory describes how we define our social identity by the social groups we belong to (source). These groups could be as broad as gender classifications, or as temporal as being a visitor to an establishment, or as specific as our interests and professional fields we have chosen for ourselves (source).
We then establish an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality; accentuating the differences between ourselves and other outgroup members, while believing the ingroup members to be more similar than they actually are (source). This categorisation process then causes us to gravitate towards activities that are more in line with the ingroup norms while avoiding those associated with outgroup norms (source).
Ever purposely rebelled on the silliest of things for ‘no reason’, even though there seemed to be nothing stopping you from doing so, finances, or logic, or otherwise? That might have just as well been you subconsciously changing your behaviour to fit in with the ingroup you had identified with (something like how a primary schooler might purposely not listen to their parents because they don’t want to be seen as an uncool goody-two-shoes by their fellow primary schoolers).
discussion
This behaviour can seem petty. And while it may very well be, its impact certainly isn’t something to scoff at. A study found that when Republicans were asked to choose one of two lightbulbs to purchase, with both bulbs’ energy-efficiency information given, they were less likely to buy the more energy-efficient lightbulb when it had the tag “Protect the Environment” on it, than when it didn’t (source). In other words, these group of people were willing to buy an inferior product that would be more expensive in the long run, simply because of party loyalty.
Social identity is, naturally, very important to us. When an individual’s perceived membership of a group at stake, it is understandable that they can be vehemently opposed to sustainable choices for ‘no reason’.
So, is there no hope for those who either subconsciously or purposely choose not to live sustainably because of their social identity? Well, not quite. Perceptions can change; perceptions change all the time. For example, eating misshapen and ugly fruits and vegetables used to be a “lower class thing”, but in recent years, that has changed. Who’s to say what norms might change next?
Nevertheless, writing this post has made me question how the social identity I created for myself has shaped my sustainable choices. Perhaps that too needs to be re-evaluated…
This is so great, Rachel.
And that study on Republicans’ choices of light bulbs being influenced negatively by a sticker with an environmental message. Fascinating. Look fwd to reading it !
But for me, the whole “us v them” thing is what resonated most. I mean, it’s one of the things I most despise. Why do we feel the need to categorise people as if we’re all m&ms and then figure out where we belong ?
But when I look deep inside myself, I can’t honestly say I never do things like that either. And so, sometimes, I wonder if this is just human nature and we need to continuously and consciously strive to overcome our tribal mentalities.
jc